My Online Prose Portfolio

"Write out of love, write out of instinct, write out of reason. But always for money."
Louis Untermeyer

The Occasional Muse
My humble opinion on current events

September 1, 2002

The Debate over Iraq

The major topic of debate among the TV talking heads and pontificating pundits is a possible U.S. war against Iraq. I normally deplore such frenzies, but this time it’s justified. Waging war is the most serious function of government – it must never be undertaken lightly or without proper debate, reflection, study, and thought.

That’s what is going on now. President Dubya has started this by making regime change the goal for Iraq. Saddam Hussein must go. Anything less – weapons inspections, containment, sanctions – is inadequate in the face of the threat Hussein represents.

But how does Hussein threaten America? According to President Dubya and other so-called hawks in his administration like Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfield, Hussein:

  • Possesses chemical and biological weapons
  • Is working toward acquiring nuclear weapons
  • Has already used poison gas against his own people and Iran
  • Maintains grand designs on conquering the Saudi oil fields
  • Funds families of Palestinian suicide bombers
  • Attempted to assassinate former President Papa Bush
  • Has violated just about every tenet of the cease-fire agreement that ended the Gulf War
  • Harbors al-Queda terrorists and terrorist training camps
  • May have played some role in the September 11 attack

A friendly, pro-Western government that guarantees freedom to Iraqis would undermine other Arab governments that suppress their people. It would also break up OPEC by controlling the Iraqi oil fields, the second larges in the country. Freedom and prosperity, and low oil prices, would finally arrive in the Middle East.

That’s quite a list. Assuming all these charges are true (and some are debatable), do they warrant a war to overthrow Hussein?

So-called doves dispute several of those charges and contend:

  • War against Iraq is too risky – the drawbacks outweigh the benefits
  • An attack would inflame the Middle East, enrage the “Arab street” and cause more America-hatred among the Arab nations
  • It would anger other countries, virtually none of whom support a war
  • An attack would force Hussein to attack Israel and use his chemical and biological weapons against U.S. troops
  • Finally, wiping out Hussein would force the U.S. to occupy Iraq for decades to support a pro-Western democratic government, which would be a constant target of terrorists

Doves also question the morality of an Iraq attack. Hussein, they claim, has never attacked America and represents no threat to American interests. He’s attacked no other country since he got spanked in the Gulf War. Such a war would be a naked act of aggression. Besides, President Dubya must have war declared by Congress to make it legal. But, in the end, overthrowing Hussein is not worth dead American soldiers.

So that’s the debate, as I see it. Despite the serious subject matter, there have been moments of silliness. For example, doves and critics of the administration (often one and the same, but not always) said for weeks that President Dubya must make his case for regime change to the American people. So, this past week, Cheney has given two strong speeches outlining President Dubya’s case, and several talking heads suggested the administration was trying to stifle debate! They were ignoring the opposite point of view! That’s not only silly, but incoherent, which implies that several pundits are using this opportunity to jab Dubya.

Others have slyly pointed out that many of these so-called hawks have never served in the military. So what? Clinton never served, in fact dodged the draft, but these same pundits never criticized Clinton for it. In fact, many of these same doves were silent when Clinton sent troops to Haiti and Bosnia.

So, there is a bit of partisanship involved here. But that’s to be expected, and there’s nothing wrong with it. In fact, the debate that’s occurring now is healthy. It shows America’s greatness. How many governments in the world would tolerate something similar? Not many, and especially not in Iraq. As Americans, we should always remember what makes our country unique.

So what’s my take on this? Do I think we should invade Iraq? My answer would be a very cautious and uneasy yes. I understand the doves’ arguments and agree with many of them – any war is a risk and carries unforeseen consequences. But I believe the risk of doing nothing outweighs the risks of war. What happens when Hussein goes nuclear? The doves say he wouldn’t dare use them, because he doesn’t want to die. But he could use them without risking his own worthless skin. Let’s look at some possible scenarios.

  • Hussein announces he’s got nukes and the means to bomb America. He then invades Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, vowing to nuke Washington or New York if America intervenes. What does America do?
  • Hussein announces he has a nuclear weapon in a major city in the United States, smuggled in by Iraqi operatives, and if America doesn’t do as he wishes, he’ll set it off. Admittedly, this is a bit far-fetched, but still possible. What does America do?
  • Hussein gets the bomb but says nothing. Instead, he sells it to al-Queda or another terrorist group and they detonate it, taking full credit. In that case, the U.S. wouldn’t know how the terrorists got the bomb. Hussein stays safe.

In essence, the doves’ arguments boil down to this: We should wait until Iraq acquires a nuke and murders millions of Americas before we take him out. The hawks, in essence, say that we shouldn’t wait for millions of Americans to die, so let’s take him out now before Hussein has a chance to do just that.

Look, I’m no warmonger. War sucks. People die. Innocents die. It’s risky and could backfire. But sometimes, the alternative is worse.

Back to The Occasional Muse